ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026
EBV reactivation and immunoparalysis indicate a harmful immune endotype in sepsis.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is increasingly recognized as a highly dynamic immunological disorder in which hyperinflammation and anti-inflammatory processes occur simultaneously. The clinical phenotype depends on which arm predominates at a given time, resulting in an early phase that is typically dominated by hyperinflammation and a subsequent phase characterized by hypoinflammation, also referred to as immunoparalysis (IP). Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation has been associated with an immunosuppressive status. However, its interaction with IP and resulting immune phenotypes remains poorly defined so far. In this current study, we investigated the temporal dynamics of EBV reactivation and IP status, and assessed their impact on immune signatures and mortality in sepsis.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort of 124 intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis, we performed analysis of EBV load by qPCR and analyzed the inflammatory stage by quantifying HLA-DR molecules on monocytes (mHLA-DR) using flow cytometry. Patients with < 5,000 mHLA-DR/monocyte were classified positive for immunoparalysis (IP+). Cytokine profiles and vital sign were analyzed in parallel. Patients were assigned to four sepsis groups based on EBV/IP status (EBV- IP-, EBV + IP-, EBV- IP+, EBV + IP+). Time-dependent Cox models (start-stop structure) were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for mortality, adjusted for age, sex and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Cytokines and clinical markers were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and rank-based analyses.
resultsEBV positivity was associated with higher hazard of death (HR 3.30, 95% CI 1.24-8.81, p = 0.0009), while IP showed a similar but nonsignificant trend (HR 2.14, 95% CI 0.93-4.90, p = 0.073). The combined EBV + IP+ group exhibited the highest mortality (HR 7.23, 95% CI 2.24-23.3, p = 0.0009). This group also showed the strongest cytokine activation (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-17 A, IL-18, MCP-1) and lowest mHLA-DR expression, indicating a mixed hyperinflammatory and immunosuppressed phenotype. In contrast, EBV- IP- patients displayed the most immunocompetent baseline profile.
conclusionOur preliminary findings suggest that EBV reactivation superimposed on immunoparalysis is associated with a harmful sepsis endotype combining excessive cytokine activity with impaired monocyte function. Further studies are needed to evaluate if the dynamic monitoring of EBV DNA and mHLA-DR expression may enable early identification of patients at highest risk and guide targeted immunomodulatory or antiviral interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.